SANFORD — The city council’s zoning subcommittee is expected to meet today, Thursday, Feb. 6, to work through concerns related to a proposed cell tower to be built off Oak Street in Springvale.

The meeting is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in the city manager’s conference room at Sanford City Hall at 919 Main Street.

Mariner Tower, the company that hopes to construct the tower for AT&T, is seeking a contract zone agreement for the project, which would occur on a parcel that is not in the city’s Cell Tower Overlay Zone and is instead in a Rural Residential Zone.

Richard and Patrick Bond, of Greenway Avenue, own the parcel, identified on the city’s tax map as R5, Lot 32.

In December, the Sanford Planning Board held a public hearing and afterward determined that the proposal is “not inconsistent” with the city’s comprehensive plan and therefore eligible to be submitted as a contract zone that would need the city council’s approval. The planners granted Mariner Tower preliminary site plan approval, contingent upon the council’s OK of the contract zone.

The city council held a public hearing and its first reading of the proposal during its meeting on Tuesday night. Christopher Ciolfi, the vice president of Mariner Tower, spoke about the project and answered questions. Three residents — Jace and Merrell Clarke and James Drummey — expressed concerns about the proposal; no one spoke in favor of it.

Ciolfi explained that the tower would be 160 feet high and would be situated between 1,500 and 1,700 feet from Oak Street. He added that the tower would not have a light atop it, as does the tower on Mount Hope, which is located in the city’s only overlay zone.

Ciolfi also said that Mariner is proposing to bring in utility poles to the site, so that wires could run above ground in order to avoid the more disruptive process of placing them underground. He added that the tower would be built at the end of a 12-foot-wide gravel road that would likely have a gate at the head of it to discourage unnecessary traffic.

Ciolfi said that tower is needed so that AT&T can provide better cell coverage in an area that’s lacking in it. He showed councilors maps that depicted the limited coverage now available in the area and the wider coverage that would result once the project is completed.

Jace Clarke told councilors he thought it would set a wrong precedent to develop an area that the city has designated for conservation under its comprehensive plan.

“I would recommend, if this is approved, (that) a deed restriction against future development or a conservation easement be put in place to strike a balance between preservation and development rights,” he said.

In an email late Tuesday night, Clarke clarified that the tower itself is “the smaller issue.”

“In my eyes, as a land owner (affected) by such conservation area, it would be a reversal of efforts to conserve Sanford’s green infrastructure and would send a mixed message to the city’s intentions and level of commitment to implement a long-term plan,” he wrote.

Clarke’s father, Merrell, also spoke during the public hearing. The elder Clarke lives near the proposed site and spoke of his “visual objection” to the proposed tower.

“I’m going to be looking at it from my back deck every day,” he said.

Drummey, an Oak Street resident whose property abuts the site, commented on the area’s popularity and said he wanted to make sure that it remains recreational for residents and visitors. He expressed concern that the need for utility poles would lead to further clearing at the site.

“I really object to that, and what they’re going to look like,” he said of the poles, adding that utilities should instead be installed underground.

Throughout the hearing, Ciolfi repeatedly assured councilors and residents that the cell tower’s visual impact would be minimal. He repeated that there would not be a light at the top of the tower — its height of less than 200 feet and its six-mile distance from the Sanford Seacoast Regional Airport makes one unnecessary, according to the Federal Aviation Administration — and that the structure would not be presented in a way that’s inconsistent with its surroundings. He also stated that the tower would not be seen by those walking or driving along Oak Street. On Wednesday morning, he noted that a few people will be able to see the antennas that are needed to make the tower work, but that, on the whole, most would not see the structure.

Councilor Alan Walsh first raised the idea that the council’s zoning subcommittee should meet to discuss concerns. Mayor Thomas Cote agreed, saying all parties needed time to get familiar with what the contract-zone application entails. Cote later continued the public hearing to the council’s next meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 18, so that more residents could have an opportunity to comment on the issue.

The zoning subcommittee will make a recommendation to the council before its final vote on the application.